Tucker Carlson's speech at the Turning Point USA Memorial

I saw several comments regarding the appearence of Tucker Carlson at the Turning Point USA Memorial and a comment by a Facebook friend Earl Foote.

My feeling is that in light of Carlson's recent conversion to the viliest form of antisemitism and feeling towards Israel he was most assuredly a very inappropriate person to speak at Charlie Kirk’s funeral.

His televised "speech" provided by Turning Point USA at the Memorial for Charlie Kirk was particularly destructive and poignantly hateful. 

Carlson readily verified that he is indeed an antisemite by his speech.

Two items stood out in Carlson's "speech":

1. He "alludes to a conspiracy theory" that has been widely shared by right wing anti- Zionists /antisemites. Where "a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus" was a "coded message", or "dog whistle," intended to imply Jewish or Israeli involvement in Kirk's death. Despite the official FBI and police narrative that a lone gunman, Tyler Robinson, was responsible.
2. Carlson invoked the historical "blood libel" myth in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Crucifiction Of Jesus, which has been used for centuries to justify violence against Jews by blaming them for the death of Jesus.

Here is what Facebook friend Earl Foote posted regarding Tucker Carlson:

"I have been following the discussion of Tucker Carlson's speech, comparing the murder of Charlie Kirk to the crucifixion of Jesus.  You can bet that I have thoughts on this.

First of all, while this part is not evil, I find it in bad taste to compare someone to Jesus Christ, a unique person/God whom I worship.  

I didn't worship Charlie Kirk, and, while his work was admirable, the praise due to him doesn't even rise to the level of the late Martin Luther King, Jr., to whom he also has been compared.  So, Carlson's speech, even in context, was a bit off, to me.

Let's look at what Carlson actually said. 

 He referred to "a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus and saying, 'Let's get that guy for telling the truth!'"  

Put aside, as has been pointed out, that hummus was not commonly consumed in the Middle East until the 13th century (A.D., of course), and as any Arab or Greek can tell you, you don't have to be Jewish to eat hummus (but it helps!).  

Carlson's defenders claim that he was referring to the Temple authorities, not to Jews overall.

This controversy is not new.

Of the four Gospels, only one, John, refers to "the Jews," meaning the scribes, pharisees, Temple authorities, and the common people.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to those categories specifically, not generically to the Jews.  

Of course, Jesus was Jewish, as was his family, and as were almost all of his followers.

In John's Gospel, it is "the Jews" that demand the crucifixion. 

In the other Gospels, it is simply "the crowd," or "the people," or "they." 

This shows that John's Gospel was written a couple of decades after the others.  

At first, Christians were considered Jews, which many of the early Christians were (altho the Epistle writer, Paul, reached out to Gentiles, emphasizing that you didn't have to subscribe to all the laws about kosher food, circumcision, etc. in order to become a Christian).

By the time John wrote his Gospel, in the 90s (not the 1990s, of course!), Christians had been thrown out of synagogs, and "Jew" was starting to become an insult.  

Also, since the Romans bear the ultimate guilt for crucifying Jesus, I suspect that John didn't want to offend Rome for fear of persecution, but there was no reason to fear Jewish leaders, because Rome had destroyed the Temple and ended Judea's semi-independence.

So, when Carlson said that "they" decided to kill Jesus, he insisted that he was referring to the Temple authorities and not all Jews.  

This is a subtle distinction that I am not sure most people can understand with a superficial glance.  It doesn't help that Carlson seems to blame Israel for everything that goes wrong in the world, so that kind of tells us what he really means.

I'll conclude by advising that, if you want to use the crucifixion story as an analogy, tread very lightly and define your terms clearly.  

The Gospel of John has been used as the basis for much anti-Semitism in the world.  

I honestly think that that was not John's intention (he was Jewish, after all, as were all of the New Testament writers except Luke), but that is how it often is interpreted.

In any case, I somewhat admired Charlie Kirk, without agreeing with all of his viewpoints, and I am certainly sorry that he was murdered, but he WASN'T "Jesus Christ, Jr."  Get a grip, everybody."

Now some clarification and historical fact:

The Gospel of John is generally believed to have been written later than the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), likely in the 90CE during a period of increasing tension and separation between early Christians and the larger Jewish community.

Scholars agree that John's frequent use of "the Jews" as a monolithic group is distinct from the other Gospels. While in the other Gospels, the blame for Jesus's death is placed on specific groups like the chief priests and Pharisees, John often presents "the Jews" as a singular, hostile entity. This language has been a source of significant debate and has contributed to a long history of antisemitism.

The Role of Rome in the narrative is in the personification of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate who is the one who ultimately sentences Jesus to death by crucifixion. The Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel all place the final responsibility on the Roman authorities, though the different Gospels portray the role of Jewish leaders and the crowd in varying degrees.

The controversy surrounding Carlson's speech highlights how historical and theological discussions, particularly those involving sensitive topics like the crucifixion of Jesus, can be co-opted and used for modern political purposes. 

Defining terms or Biblical references clearly as well as providing the true documentedd historical context of these texts is often lost in modern discourse, leading to misinterpretations and the amplification of harmful tropes.

Personally knowing Charlie Kirk from his many talks and his professed love for the People of Israel and Israel he would have NOT tolerated Tucker Carlson at all!